The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) revealed on Sept. 11 that the Mars rover Curiosity has finally reached and is ready to climb Mount Sharp, also known as Aeolis Mons, where scientists expect it can shed more light on the Red Planet's history and find signs that Mars had once hosted life.
Curiosity had been driving toward the Mount Rainier-sized mountain since it arrived on Mars two years ago, but the NASA Planetary Senior Review Panel, which rated the U.S. space agency's ongoing planetary explorations, criticized the long trek of Curiosity's Mars Science Laboratory mission for being a "poor science return."
The review panel, which is chaired by Clive Neal of the Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences department of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, was critical that the Mars mission does not make the most of the rover's technological capabilities given the investment funneled into it.
The panel's report cited, among other concerns, how the team behind Curiosity only intends to drill eight samples during the extended mission and how the rover's trek over long distances could lessen time spent examining clay on the Martian surface. In essence, the panel said Curiosity should conduct more scientific investigations rather than drive long distances.
NASA, however, continues to back the $2.5 billion mission and responded to the criticism by pointing to the early success of the rover in attaining a key mission goal of determining if Mars had once been a habitable world.
NASA scientists also said that Curiosity's long drive to its prime destination was due to sharp rocks damaging the wheels, which prompted the team to re-route the rover away from the danger zone.
"The wheels issue contributed to taking the rover farther south sooner than planned, but it is not a factor in the science-driven decision to start ascending here rather than continuing to Murray Buttes first," said Curiosity Deputy Project Manager Jennifer Trosper.
In response to the number of drill samples that the NASA-commissioned review panel said was insufficient, Curiosity Project Scientist John Grotzinger explained why they chose to drill less.
"When you get that drill out, there is always a risk. So we would rather take an approach that we drill less, protecting it," Grotzinger said adding that the drill also has a limited life span. "The fickle nature of the preservation of organic matter is probably best handled by drilling a greater diversity of samples a fewer number of times."
